If you're angrily criticizing someone who has less empathy than others, and probably criticizing them all the more harshly because their behavior is probably worse, you're asking them to respond to you as if they have substantially more of what they have substantially less of.
You're trying to fix them by hitting what's broken.
This is one reason psychopaths/sociopaths often cannot seem to learn from punishment. The punishment seems like an attack from an enemy who pretends to be better than them (and pretends that this "consequence" is natural and inevitable and undeniably right, rather than artificially imposed and a bit of an experiment or crapshoot). The angry person pretends to be better but is, in the unempath's eyes, a sanctimonious hypocrite and no better, and probably weaker and more foolish. This sets them up to like you even less, listen to you even less, want to launch some kind of counterattack, and possibly turn against society at large.
That isn't really the thought process you want when you take someone to task. But it's what you'll likely induce when you attack someone who's too lacking in empathy.
(I know this from reading the experts, from dealing extensively with abusive people including standing up to them and influencing them, and also because I feel this way myself at times, and it's empathy that allows me to rise above it.)
To influence almost anyone well, you need them emotionally on your side, on some level. It's just a prerequisite.
Getting yelled at, feeling that was maybe a little mean but we get it, fixing our behavior because we've learned our lesson - this is what empathetic people do.
(Sometimes we then do unto others who are making similar mistakes, assuming that's what'll teach them. Ideally we'd be so kind and understanding we'd neither misstep nor need harsh words to recognize it and course correct, apologizing and making amends as needed. But even the most empathetic people have occasionally failed to see a thing fully until the pressure was slathered on with anger. Subsequently, we may find ourselves assuming this is what's needed when others aren't responding. Occasionally it is, but it probably works better the more empathetic the person receiving the intervention. And the more empathetic they are, the more they'll probably respond to gentler feedback, obviating the harshness and making it inefficient, gratuitous, or unskilled. This probably works best with normal people who have repeatedly not improved, maybe because they're distracted or less sensitive in some area, but who fully possess the empathy to eventually understand the criticism, the anger behind it, how to deescalate it, and what they can and should do to make all this better. But that person sounds pretty empathetic already, and it's quite likely the issue is a communication problem.)
One way empathetic people have often failed to understand others is that people with sufficiently impaired empathy probably do not work this way. They need a different approach.
